Actually, on rereading my previous response, a realized that I also referred to it as a "library" (see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_(computing)) which most (all?) markdown parsers are. So a "markdown editor" (a GUI app like MarkdownPad) would make calls to a "markdown library" to covert the markdown text typed by the user to HTML.
Strictly speaking, a library would generally consist of a "parser" and a "formatter". The parser parses the text ( identifies the different parts) and a formatter coverts those parts (the parse tree) into the final format. Therefore some libraries (like Pandoc) have multiple formatters, whereas others (most) only have one. Given the lack of choice of formatters, most people forget about the formatter part of the process. Thus the common nomenclature used is often "parser". To add additional confusion most libraries also ship with a command line script which wraps the underlying library. That script usually defaults to parsing Markdown text and outputting HTML. So most people (perhaps incorrectly) think of that wrapping script as the final product and refer to the whole thing as the "parser". So I would say that "library" is probably the technically correct term, but the generally accepted (and most widely understood) term is "parser". Waylan Limberg > On Sep 7, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Waylan Limberg <waylan.limb...@icloud.com> wrote: > > I would have to agree with Andrei mostly. Those of us that have implemented > markdown libraries generally refer to them as implementations of a > **parser**. "Processor" or "translator" are not words I've ever seen used. > > Waylan Limberg > >> On Sep 7, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Andrei Fangli <andrei_fan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think not. When I hear Markdown processor I think of a specialized >> word/text processor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor) which >> is more an application that helps you write stuff and print it, eventually >> export it to html. If you were to write an application that helps you write >> documents (e.g.: insert list, quote etc. via buttons/commands) and use >> Markdown as the underlying format would be a Markdown processor. If you >> would write an application that translates a Markdown document to html, that >> would be a Markdown translator and the whole process would be called >> translation (or Markdown to Html Translation). See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation. >> >> For me, Markdown implementation sounds a bit odd. Markdown is not >> standardized nor is its specification clear enough to draw a deterministic >> procedure for translating Markdown into html (or an Abstract Syntax Tree). >> You cannot say that there are multiple Markdown implementations if they do >> not yield the same output for any given input (if you would then I could >> swap implementations however I wish and get the same result). >> >> I’d simply name the specification (or flavour) and append “Translator” at >> the end (e.g.: Github flavoured Markdown Translator, Common Markdown >> Translator etc.). That way it’s all clear what specification is used and >> what the intent of the application is. The real working horse behind a >> translator is a parser, once you have that you can pretty much do anything >> else. Saying that you have a Markdown parser is almost the same as saying >> that you have a Markdown translator, the remaining effort is close to a days >> work if you want to make it really fancy. >> >> Andrei Fangli >> >> From: Sean Leonard >> Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2014 02:55 >> To: markdown-discuss@six.pairlist.net >> >> Hello Markdown World, >> >> Last month draft-seantek-text-markdown-media-type was adopted by the >> IETF Apps Area Working Group (APPSAWG). I am working on revising it. >> >> I am trying to use uniform terms. An implementation that converts >> Markdown content to another format--most typically HTML--is called...a >> Markdown processor, right? >> >> I have been using the term "Markdown processor". Just want to see if >> there is substantial disagreement about using that term to refer to the >> collective set of Markdown implementations out there. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sean >> >> PS I suppose it could also be called a "Markdown implementation". But >> I'm going to stick to my original nomenclature in the absence of a push >> for something else. For instance, graphical tools such as [MarkdownPad] >> may be implementations of Markdown, but they are not processors. >> MarkdownPad is a Markdown editor, that has built-in support for various >> Markdown processors (such as a GitHub Flavored Markdown processor, and a >> Markdown Extra processor). >> >> [MarkdownPad]: http://markdownpad.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> Markdown-Discuss mailing list >> Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net >> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Markdown-Discuss mailing list > Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
_______________________________________________ Markdown-Discuss mailing list Markdown-Discuss@six.pairlist.net http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/markdown-discuss
